But there is one thing that Duck did not mention that leads to inconsistencies is the arm multiplier for regular weapons. It absolutely needs to go. It adds nothing to the regular weapons (non-BA) dynamics except inconsistency.

Could you please point out such a weapon that has its min/max BTK affected by that multiplier?

I was under the impression the long TTK was a feature and not a bug this time around. I thought DICE was just kinda branching out some and trying something.

It is and it could be a good feature.

Sadly it doesn't quite work out with the other parts of BF1. I agree with ducky that it might be a factor in the gadget/grenade spam issue, but more importantly it does not mix well with how most maps and modes are played.

There are no non-64-player conquest servers. Maps have the action quite concentrated and squad spawn is sometimes quite erratic with spawns occurring after being engaged. Thus you will very often face multiple enemies at once, and that not only makes things more difficult with longer TTKs, but especially with the (both relatively and absolutely) smaller magazines. BF4's 900RPM high BTK SMG was the P90 at 50 rounds/mag. The Automatico 1918 has half of that capacity and less accuracy. The MP18 kills slower than any automatic gun in BF4, but its 32 round mag is nice. Too bad you won't be able to use it in many cases because you get overwhelmed. Similar story with the Hellriegel, which also has terribad hipfire, and hipfire is bestfire.

While I think CQL 48 player, probably also with a lot fewer vehicles, and CQ(s) 32p would already greatly ameliorate the perceived TTK issues, reducing the overall BTK might be a different approach that works.

I disagree with ducky, however, on not reducing the Medics' BTK. I think a 2HK up close can be fine. It was in BF3 (DMRs fo days) and it works with revolvers in any BF game. Obviously the rate of fire would have to take a severe hit in most cases, drastically changing the feel of many SLRs, but I think it would overall be for the better. Not only would they remain competitive with the other guns, it would make them far less of a pain to use due to the amount of possible kills per mag being increased substantially for anything stripper-clip fed. I would therefore increase the rate of fire on detachable mag fed guns (1907, 1916, Auto 8 .25) and maybe make the 1907 and Auto 8 .25 slightly more accurate, but leave their BTK as they are.
The stripper-clip fed Cei-Rigotti, 1906, Auto 8 .35 and Mondragon would have their RoF slowed down, but be a 2 hit kill up close with long range maybe being extended, but end damage remaining the same. The RSC would simply receive a small RoF buff.
Spread values would have to follow suit of course.

No BF1 map has "a lot of vehicles". Vehicles have really nothing to do with the small arms situation anyway. And vehicles are mostly restricted to fighting at very short range (ie within grenade range) so they are basically suffering the same problem as infantry.

But there is one thing that Duck did not mention that leads to inconsistencies is the arm multiplier for regular weapons. It absolutely needs to go. It adds nothing to the regular weapons (non-BA) dynamics except inconsistency.

Could you please point out such a weapon that has its min/max BTK affected by that multiplier?

he never mentioned mn-max damage, only that it adds inconsistency for no reason, which is true, it makes sense on the slug shotgun and maybe sniper rifles, but everywhere else it adds nothing to the game except the chance of not getting a kill at certain ranges.

But there is one thing that Duck did not mention that leads to inconsistencies is the arm multiplier for regular weapons. It absolutely needs to go. It adds nothing to the regular weapons (non-BA) dynamics except inconsistency.

Could you please point out such a weapon that has its min/max BTK affected by that multiplier?

I believe the weapon damage is designed to have the same BTK if you have hit all chest or all arm shots. However, my question would be then, why add this feature to the regular weapons? I do not like the feel when I hit some with a Benet-Mercie, for example, in the upper body and do 18 instead of 19 damage. It feels inconsistent. The question should not be "why not have it?".

But there is one thing that Duck did not mention that leads to inconsistencies is the arm multiplier for regular weapons. It absolutely needs to go. It adds nothing to the regular weapons (non-BA) dynamics except inconsistency.

Could you please point out such a weapon that has its min/max BTK affected by that multiplier?

In this game you are often not at 100% health and there things like this really matter. It also further complicates the gunplay with more modifiers. This is unneeded and should go, especially since you are bound to hit the arms whenever a a guy crosses your path. Exaggerated spread further enhances the inconsistencies caused by modifiers.

Generally I do find it intriguing that people realise now how poor the gameplay really is, when it comes to mechanics as well as map design, 9 months after release. I guess some people were enlightened.

In this game you are often not at 100% health and there things like this really matter. It also further complicates the gunplay with more modifiers. This is unneeded and should go, especially since you are bound to hit the arms whenever a a guy crosses your path. Exaggerated spread further enhances the inconsistencies caused by modifiers.

Generally I do find it intriguing that people realise now how poor the gameplay really is, when it comes to mechanics as well as map design, 9 months after release. I guess some people were enlightened.

Alternatively, you could always just aim better and not hit the arms.

Why are you so against gunplay that has even the slightest bit of complexity?

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:

Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

In this game you are often not at 100% health and there things like this really matter. It also further complicates the gunplay with more modifiers. This is unneeded and should go, especially since you are bound to hit the arms whenever a a guy crosses your path. Exaggerated spread further enhances the inconsistencies caused by modifiers.

Generally I do find it intriguing that people realise now how poor the gameplay really is, when it comes to mechanics as well as map design, 9 months after release. I guess some people were enlightened.

Alternatively, you could always just aim better and not hit the arms.

Why are you so against gunplay that has even the slightest bit of complexity?

With spread mechanics that do not allow for pinpoint accuracy for many weapons (which I am totally fine with), you can aim centermass all the time and still hit the arms, especially when they cross your path, whilst flankig or whatever, and most exposed hit areas are the arms. That creates inconsistencies and that is not good.

I am not against complexity, I am against complicated. You know I find the spread mechanics and how it correlates with recoil very unintuitive. Together with spread decrease playing a role now and different multipliers for different bodyparts, sharp damage drop-off, DICE created a scenario where you can not naturally rely on your weapons, because they behave drastically different even within weapon classes. With the specialized niches also offered, you will, as a player, hit situations where you are totally on point and will either do no significant damage or will not be able to hit. That puzzles players through inconsistency.
It is also way too complicated for players to understand the numbers behind it, and that is with the nice stat sheets we have on symthic. I know many do not feel that way here, but if a newcomer would want to judge the best weapon for his playstyle he would hit a brickwall of information, that is only available and analyzed on third party sites. It would not be so obvious, if the game would not be lacking in several other departments that are connected to the gunplay, like map design, gamemodes etc.. As a result these the nice and shiny looking shooting mechanics, that people used to praise a lot, does not sit well with the game experience and that discrepancy is one key ingredient to why BF1 is frustrating and unfun to many players.

Bullets do less damage to limbs, spread increases per shot, bullets do less damage over distance. Just don't try to fight past your effective range and don't just spray and pray and you'll be fine. People can learn that without too much difficulty.

You don't need to know all the exact numbers to get the gist of how it all works and to fight effectively.

The issue people have with arm multipliers isn't when you're looking in profile and hit them sticking out, it's when you're facing them and they're effectively just part of the chest hitbox.

If we're going to have arms taking away part of what should be the chest hitbox and giving lower damage, we might as well have a heart hitbox that does headshot damage to. Pretty hard to justify one and argue against the other, as they're effectively the same thing.

Ha! It is way more than that. What about movement, engagement distance, spread decrease, stance, ADS or hipfire, return fire, suppression, time between bursts. Then you add different modifiers, an individual damage model for many weapons, different spread models for weapon classes. And in the heat of the moment you are then supposed to calculate how to be make the most out of an engagement? So from the top of your head, what is the optimal burst length for an automatico at 20m when you move and shoot from the hip? How much of the screen does the target take up at that range anyway? At what bullet does the Huot reach it's minimum spread? How many bullets do you need to kill someone at 50m with the Rigotti if you land one hit on the limbs?

It is much more complicated. Weapons lose a lot of effectiveness within just a couple of metres, how are you supposed to think about this? Your aim can be on point and you will still miss, although it is the second bullet, how is that instinctive? This is where the game is lacking, weapons should instinctively feel good, and DICE just bloated their numbers to far.